HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 1208 97
_ tL: f'e...~(J... -II,.q."
.' H D:
~
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF Amending the }
Shoreline Management Master Program }
Assigning the Jefferson County Hearing }
Examiner the Duties to Conduct Open Record }
Public Hearings and Make Final Decisions }
on Shoreline Permits, and Incorporating }
Definitions, Exemptions, and Procedural }
Changes as Revised in State law; and }
an Amendment to Chapter 2.05.120 JCC to }
Assign the Public Hearing of Shorelines }
Permits to the Powers and Duties of the }
Hearing Examiner. }
Ordinance No. 07-1208-97
I. FINDINGS
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners hereby enter the following findings of fact:
1. Jefferson County is planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act,
codified as RCW 36.70A and the Regulatory Reform Act, codified as RCW 36.70B; and
2. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.58, RCW) requires
that counties and cities incur certain duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to
implementation of said act; and
3. A Jefferson County Shoreline Management Program was approved by the State of
Washington pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW in 1974; and
4. The current Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program, adopted on March
7,1989, was amended on August 16,1993 and on August 29, 1996; and
5. On January 13, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners dissolved the Shorelines
Management Advisory Commission by oral Motion; and
6. On April 28, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution 54-97 "....to
reconstitute the currently established County Planning Commission and County
Shoreline Commission as an integrated Planning Commission." The powers and duties of
the reconstituted Planning Commission include assistance and advisement to the planning
department in the development of and any revisions to the Shoreline Management Master
Program; and
7. On June 16, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution 71-97 assigning
to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner the duties and power to hear the quasi-judicial
Shoreline permits; and
8. On June 16, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Jefferson County
Department of Community Development to develop am~ndments to the Shoreline Master
Program for consideration by the Board of Commissioners which would delete Section
~VaL 23 i}'.:934
1
6.01 regarding the Shoreline Advisory Commission. The Board of Commissioners
directed that the Shoreline Master Program amendment authorize the Jefferson County
Hearing Examiner to hold open record public hearings and make final decisions for permit
decisions within the scope of the Shoreline Master Program; and
9. On August 27, 1997 the Jefferson County Long Range Planning Department was notified
by the Department of Ecology that an amendment to the Shoreline Management Master
Program would require inclusion of certain definitions, exemptions, and procedural
changes incorporated into state law in revisions to Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline
Management Act of 1971 and Chapter 173-27 WAC, Shoreline Management Permit and
Enforcement Procedures; and
10. In the development of these amendments, Jefferson County has considered information
from the following sources:
a. Washington State Shorelines Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW.
b. Washington State Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B.
c. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-26, State Master Program
Approval/ Amendment Procedures.
d. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-27, Shoreline Management Permit
and Enforcement Procedures.
e. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-22, Adoption of Designations of
Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State.
f. Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-0408-96, Optional Consolidated Permit Review
Process.
g. Jefferson County Code, Chapter 2.05 Hearing Examiner, Section 2.05.120 Powers
and duties; and
11. On September 17, 1997 the draft amendment was presented to the Shorelines
Subcommittee of the Planning Commission for assistance and advisement; and
12. On October 3, 1997 a SEP A application, checklist, and request for designation of lead
agency was submitted to the Jefferson County SEP A Administrator; and
13. A Determination of Lead Agency and Notice of Pending Threshold Determination was
published in the Port Townsend Leader on October 8, 1997. The IS-day comment period
ended on October 23, 1997; and
14. On October 22, 1997 a Notice of Determination of Non-significance was issued by the
SEP A Administrator and advertised in the Port Townsend Leader. The IS-day comment
period ended on November 5,1997; and
15. On November 6,1997 a Notice of Final Determination of Non-significance was issued by
the SEPA Administrator. A 10-day appeal period ended on November 15, 1997, and no
appeals were made; and
16. On October 29, 1997 the draft Shoreline Management Master Program amendment was
presented to the Planning Commission for review at a public meeting. On November 12,
1997 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the amendment and voted
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendment with
changes as recommended in the November 12, 1997 staff report; and
17. On November 12, 1997 the SEP A Responsible Official issued an addendum to the SEP A
determination for a categorical exemption for a procedural change to the amendment, to
clarify the powers and duties of the Hearing Examiner to conduct' Open Record Public
IVorr 23 r,~~; 935
2
Hearings and make final decisions regarding permits issued under the Shoreline
Management Master Program, and for appeals of such decisions to be made to the Board of
County Commissioners in a Closed Record Public Hearing; and
18. On November 24, 1997 the Board of County Commissioners issued notice of a public
hearing for this ordinance amending the Shoreline Management Master Program. It was
determined by the Board based on the advice of the Department of Ecology that an
ordinance was required to amend the Master Program in that, while all amendments prior
to this were adopted by the state into the state law, since 1996 the Department of Ecology
no longer adopts local Master Programs into state law, but issues approval by letter. This
change in the state program requires that the Master Program be amended by ordinance,
with the expectation that a revision of the entire Master Program will be adopted in its
entirety by an ordinance following the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan; and
19. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the policies of the Washington State
Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and the Regulatory Reform Act
(Chapter 36.70B RCW) and are necessary to protect the shoreline environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS by the Jefferson County Board
of Commissioners:
II. The Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program
Proposed Regulatory Reform Amendment
{Note to Public: References to the City of Port Townsend no longer apply to the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program.)
PREFACE - No changes.
SECTION 1 - No changes.
SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS - Definitions listed have been amended or added.
Definitions given for the terms in this Master Program apply only to their use under the
jurisdiction of this Master Program as defined in Chapter 90.58 RCW. Some terms may have
different definitions and applications under other regulations and ordinances. When not
consistent with the context, words used in the present tense shall include the future, the
singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular. The word "shall"
means mandatory, the word "should" means recommend by but not required, and the word
"may" means permissive. For the purpose of this Master Program, certain words and terms
shall be interpreted or defined as follows:
12. Average grade level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of
the lot, parcel, or tract of real property that will be directly under the proposed building or
structure. In the case of structures to be built over the water, the average grade level shall be
the elevation of the ordinary high water. The calculation of the average grade level shall be
made by averaging the elevations at the midpoint of the proposed building or structure.
!volf 23 rAG'. 936
3
26. Conditional use: A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a
conditional use or is not classified within the Master Program. A use which varies from the
designated uses is considered a conditional use.
30. Department: The Department of Ecology.
39. Exempt developments: Those developments which are not required to obtain a
substantial development permit under RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), but which must otherwise
comply with applicable provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the Master Program.
40. Exemption: Authorization from Jefferson County which establishes that an activity is
exempt from substantial development permit requirements under WAC 173-27-040, but
subject to regulations of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program.
42. Fair market value: For a development, it is the open market bid price for conducting the
work, using the equipment and facilities, and purchase of the goods, services and materials
necessary to accomplish the development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a
contractor to undertake the development from start to finish, including the cost of labor,
materials, equipment and facility usage, transportation and contractor overhead and profit.
The fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated,
contributed, or found labor, equipment or materials.
51. Guidelines: Those standards adopted to implement the policy of the Shoreline
Management Act for regulation of use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of the
master programs and which serve as criteria in the development of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program.
53. Height: A measurement from average grade level to the highest point of a structure.
Television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances are not used in calculating height,
except where they obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences, or where this
Master Program provides otherwise. Temporary construction equipment is not used in
calculating height.
62. Marsh: An area of low-lying wet land; a fen, swamp, or bog. [reference WAC 173-22].
63. Master Program: The comprehensive management plan for a described shoreline and
water surface area and the use regulation together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other
descriptive material and text; a statement of desired goals and standards developed in
accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020 and its guidelines under WAC 173-
16 and 173-27.
67. Non-conforming use or development: A shoreline use or development which was
lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable
master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations
or standards of the program.
73. Party of record: All persons, agencies or organizations who have submitted written
comments in response to a notice of application; made oral comments in a formal public
hearing conducted on the application; or notified local government of their desire to receive a
copy of the final decision on a permit and who have provided an address for delivery of such
notice by mail.
75. Permit: Any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision
authorized under Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shorelines Management Act.
81. Public Interest: The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in
the affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected
4
~ VOL 23 fAG~ 937
including, but not limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general
welfare resulting from a use or development.
92. Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in
all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark,
floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways,
and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are
subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the
Department of Ecology. Shorelands are distinguished from shorelines in that shorelines
extend waterward from the ordinary high water mark to the County line, while shorelands
extend landward from the ordinary high water mark for 200 feet.
95. Shorelines: All the water area of Jefferson County, including reservoirs and their
associated shorelands, together with lands underlying them, except: a. Shorelines of state-
wide significance. b. Shorelines or segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean
annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the shorelands associated with such
upstream segments. c. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and shorelands
associated with such small lakes.
96. Shorelines of State-wide Significance: A shoreline of the state with respect to Jefferson
County and the City of Port Townsend as identified as follows: a. Those lakes, whether
natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or
more measured at the ordinary high water mark, including associated wetlands. b. Those areas
of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary
high watermark and the line of extreme low tide, which are Hood Canal from Tala Point to
Foulweather Bluff, south to the Mason-Jefferson County line, including associated wetlands.
c. Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to
the Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide. d. Those natural rivers
or segments thereof downstream from a point where the mean annual flow is measured at one
thousand cubic feet per second or more. In Jefferson County these rivers are the Clearwater
River, Hoh River, and Quinault River. e. Those shorelands associated with a,b, and d of this
definition.
99. State Master Program: The cumulative total of all master programs approved or adopted
by the Department of Ecology
104. Swamp: A lowland region saturated with water [ref. WAC 173-22].
106. Transmit: To send from one person or place to another by mail or hand delivery. The
date of transmittal for mailed items is the date that the document is certified for mailing or,
for hand-delivered items, is the date of receipt at the destination.
111. Variance: A means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or performance
standards set forth in the applicable master program and not a means to vary a use of a
shoreline.
122. Wetland: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated conditions. Wetlands
do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including,
but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those
wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the
:vo~ 23 f,~~;938
5
construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries under the Master Program shall
be performed in accordance with the criteria and indicators listed in WAC 173-22-080. These
criteria and indicators along with recommended methods and additional background
information can be found in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation
Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94.
SECTION 3 - SCOPE
SUBSECTION 3.10 and 3.20 - No change.
SUBSECTION 3.30 APPLICABILITY
(3) Change to WAC 173.27
SUBSECTION 3.40 EXEMPTIONS
SUBSECTION 3.401 ADMINISTRA TION - No change
SUBSECTION 3.402 PERMIT EXEMPTIONS
Those developments that do not require issuance of a shoreline substantial development
permit are as follows. These developments require formal exemption approval by the
Planning and Building Department.
1. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher,
does not exceed $2,500, if such development does not materially interfere with the
normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state.
2. Those developments lawfully established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58), which was June 1, 1971. Substantial development
started but not completed prior to the effective date of the act shall not continue
without a permit.
3. Those ongoing developments established after the effective date of the Shoreline
Management Act that have already obtained permits in full compliance with the act
and related rules adopted thereafter, pursuant to WAC 173-27.
4. Developments undertaken by the federal government on lands owned in fee by the
federal government, unless the federal government grants or reserves to the state or
local government substantial jurisdiction over activities on those lands.
5. Construction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence for
the owner's or owner's family's use; provided the residence:
a. Does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level.
b. Does not involve over-water construction and is located landward of the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
c. Meets all other state and local requirements of this Master Program including
residential setback requirements set forth in Section 5.160 of this Master
Program.
Single family residence means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one
family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership
that are a normal appurtenance. An appurtenance is necessarily connected to the use
and enjoyment of a single family residence and is located landward of the perimeter of
a wetland. Normal appurtenances include a garage, deck, driveway, utilities, fences,
and grading that does not exceed 250 cubic yards and which does not involve
placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
~VOL
23 r,~~~ 939
6
6. Normal maintenance or repair of existing lawful structures or developments, including
damage by accident, fire, or elements. Non-conforming uses and developments are
regulated according to WAC 173-27-080. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to
prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. Normal repair
means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition within a
reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair involves total
replacement that is not common practice or causes substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline resource or environment.
Common replacement of existing development that has been damaged by accident,
fire, or the elements means:
a. The new development is essentially the same as the original in location, size,
configuration, and external appearance.
b. The development was in existence and use at the time of adoption of the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act Gune 1971).
c. The replacement is completed within two (2) years after damage.
7. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to a single family residence,
provided the bulkhead is constructed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high
water mark. A normal protective bulkhead is constructed to protect land from
erosion, not for the purpose of creating land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is
being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot
of wall may be used as backfill. Where an existing bulkhead is being replaced, it shall
be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for
construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary
high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of
the bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual
ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control
projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements
are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
8. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements.
An emergency is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the
environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full
compliance with this Master Program. Emergency construction does not include
development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed.
Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the
appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the
emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit obtained which
would have been required, absent an emergency, under RCW 90.58 and this Master
Program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated
and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency.
9. Construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure on shorelands. Construction
and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities
including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction
and maintenance of irrigation structures, including but not limited to head gates,
pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. However, a feedlot of any size, all
: VOL 23 rM,~ 940
7
processing plant, other activities of a commercial nature, and alteration of the contour
of the shorelands be leveling or filling other than that which results from normal
cultivation shall not be considered normal for necessary farming or ranching activities.
A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding
livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for
growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include
normal livestock wintering operations.
10. Construction or modification, by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a
designated port management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers
and anchor buoys. This exemption does not pertain to rafts, floats, or docks.
11. Construction of a new dock or placement of a single mooring buoy designed only for
pleasure craft and the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract
purchaser of an adjoining single family residence; provided said development does not-
exceed $2,500 in cost or fair market value and provided the mooring buoys do not
extend waterward more than the minus six foot or one fathom tidal elevation as
measured from the mean lower low water.
12. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or
other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as part of an
irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including
return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands.
13. The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking
does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
14. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities
existing on September 8, 1975 (the effective date of an amendment to RCW 90.58),
which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural
drainage or dike system.
15. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to RCW 80.50.
16. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an
application for development authorization under this Master Program, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including
but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic
values;
c. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon
completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are
restored to conditions existing before the activity;
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a
performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local
jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550 for oil or
natural gas exploration in marine waters.
17. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW
17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed
control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the
VOL 23 iN;~ 941
8
Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly with other state agencies
under chapter 43.21C RCW.
18. Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local government shall review the
projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and
shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving all
materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may
be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration
projects as used in this section.
a. "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the
sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the
plan and consists of one or more of the following activities:
(1) A project that involves less than ten miles of streamreach, in which less than
twenty-five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported,
disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed
except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings;
(2) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that
employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a
stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on
using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or
(3) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove
or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource
available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any
structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement
structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in
floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream.
b. "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology, the Department of
Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, a federally recognized
Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county, a port, or
a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation
measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or enhancement
of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment,
drainage area, or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted
pursuant to chapter 43.21 RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act.
19. A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife
habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately
designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose.
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and
Wildlife under RCW 75.20.
c. The local government has determined that the project is consistent with the local
shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in
a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent.
. VOL 23 rM/942
9
20. Hazardous substance remedial actions. The procedural requirements of RCW 90.58 shall
not apply to a project for which a consent decree, order or agreed order has been issued under
RCW 70.105D RCW or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action
under RCW 70.105D RCW. The department shall, in consultation with the appropriate local
government, assure that such projects comply with the substantive requirements of RCW
90.58, WAC 173-26 and this Master Program.
SECTION 4 - SHORELINE DESIGNATIONS AND PROJECT CLASSIFICATIONS
SUBSECTION 4.10 - No change.
SUBSECTION 4.20 PROJECT CLASSIFICATIONS
SUBSECTION 4.201 PRIMARY - No change.
SUBSECTION 4.202 SECONDARY - No change.
SUBSECTION 4.203 CONDITIONAL
Criteria - Change to WAC 173-27-160.
SUBSECTION 4.204 PROHIBITED - No change.
SUBSECTION 4.205 UNCLASSIFIED - No change.
SUBSECTION 4.30 SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE - No change.
SUBSECTION 4.40 CLASSIFICATION TABLE - No change.
SECTION 5 - POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - No change.
SECTION 6 ADMINISTRATION
SUBSECTIONS
6.10 Program Administration
6.20 Public Hearings
6.30 County Commissioners and City Council
6.40 Application
There is hereby established by this Master Program an administrative system designed to
assign responsibilities for review of substantial development permits, to prescribe an orderly
process by which to review all permit applications, and generally to ensure that all persons
coming within the jurisdiction of this Master Program are treated in a fair and equitable
manner.
SUBSECTION 6.10 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
The Jefferson County Planning and Building Department is hereby vested with general
overall administration of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program with
respect to Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. For projects originating within
the City of Port Townsend, the planning department shall perform its duties in conjunction
with the Port Townsend Public Works Department and Mayor's Office. The responsibilities
and duties of the Planning and Building Department include the following:
1. Prepare and use such forms it deems essential for administrative purposes. Such forms
shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-110.
2. Advise and assist applicants for shoreline permits of administrative requirements and
review criteria of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program.
3. . Insofar a:' possible, ensure that all shoreline permit applications are proper and complete
pnor to reVIew.
4. Ensure that all administrative requirements designed by the Shoreline Management Act
and this Master Program are accomplished in processing shoreline permit applications.
VOL 23 rM:~ 943
10
5. Insofar as possible, ensure that all foreseeable and pertinent data, correspondence, and
testimony regarding permit applications has been considered and are in order prior to review.
6. Present permit applications for substantial development, secondary and conditional uses
and variance requests together with any findings, evaluations, and recommendations to the
Hearing Examiner.
7. Present permit applications together with findings, evaluations, and recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners or City Council.
8. Review all proper and complete shoreline permit applications for primary uses.
9. Review any and all information, testimony, or correspondence from interested persons,
groups, or agencies with respect to shoreline permit applications for primary uses.
10. Make findings and evaluations and thereafter formulate and transmit recommendations to
the Hearing Examiner or City Council that permits be granted or denied for primary uses
with respect to compliance with the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program.
11. Condition any permit recommended for approval associated with Item 10 above in order
to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use, as well as bringing about conformance with
the goals, policies, and or standards of this Master Program.
12. Provide technical and administrative assistance to the Hearing Examiner, Board of
County Commissioners or City Council relative to the Shoreline Management Act and this
Master Program.
13. Act as the primary liaison between local and state agencies in the administration of the
Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program.
14. Make administrative decisions and interpretations regarding the Shoreline Management
Act and this Master Program.
15. Seek remedies for either violations of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master
Program, or for noncompliance with conditions of any approved shoreline permit issued by
Jefferson County or the City of Port Townsend.
16. Assist in the development and processing of any proposed adjustments of this Master
Program.
17. Insofar as possible, ensure that all foreseeable pertinent data, correspondence, testimony,
and recommendations on proposed adjustments to this Master Program are considered and are
in order prior to review.
18. Present proposed adjustments to this Master Program, together with findings and
recommendations, to the Jefferson County Planning Commission, the Board of County
Commissioners, or City Council.
19. Undertake measures to inform the citizens of Jefferson County or the City of Port
Townsend of the philosophy, purposes, goals, requirements, implications, and technical
considerations associated with the Shoreline Management Act and this Maste~ Program.
SUBSECTION 6.20 PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner shall have the responsibilities and duties identified
below:
1. Consider through an open record public hearing or other means all pertinent data,
testimony, correspondence, findings, evaluations, recommendations, and conditions
related to any application for a shoreline permit within the scope of this Master Program.
VOL 23 fAf:~ 944
11
2. Accept or reject any recommendation and/or conditions(s), and thereupon take action to
grant or deny applications for permits with respect to compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act and this Master Program.
3. Condition any permit recommended for approval associated with Item 2 above in order to
prevent undesirable effects of the proposed project, as well a bringing about conformance
with the goals, policies, and standards of this Master Program.
4. Seek remedies for either violations of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master
Program, or for noncompliance with conditions for any approved permit issued by
Jefferson County.
5. Seek remedies for either violations of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master
Program, or for noncompliance with conditions for any approved permit issued by
Jefferson County or the City of Port Townsend.
6. Act as an appeals body to adjudicate grievances brought forth by a person regarding
administrative decisions or interpretations associated with the Shoreline Management Act
and this Master Program.
SUBSECTION 6.30 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CITY COUNCIL
The responsibilities and duties of the Board of County Commissioners or City Council with
respect to this Master Program include the following:
1. Consider through closed record public hearings all pertinent data testimony,
correspondence, findings, evaluations, recommendations, and conditions related to
any appeal of a decision by the Hearing Examiner regarding any application for a
shoreline permit.
2. Act as an appeals board through closed record public hearings with respect to
decisions of the Hearing Examiner issued within the scope of this Master Program. 3.
3. Consider through public hearings or meetings all pertinent data, testimony,
correspondence, findings, and recommendations related to any proposed adjustments
to this Master Program.
4. Accept or reject any recommendation or portion thereof and thereupon take action
to adopt or not adopt any proposed adjustments to this Master Program.
SUBSECTION 6.40 APPLICATION - No change
SUBSECTION 6.401 PROCEDURE
The following procedure shall be applied to the processing of shoreline permit applications in
order to assure that review of an application is expedient and equitable:
1. An applicant must submit a proper and complete application in accordance with
WAC 173-27-110 to the Planning and Building Department on forms so designated.
2. An applicant may need to submit a proper and complete environmental assessment
or, if appropriate, environmental impact statement to the Planning and Building
Department or Jefferson County Permit Center on forms or in a format so
designated.
3. Application fees must be paid in accordance with those established by the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners.
4. Notice of application shall be provided within fourteen days after the complete
information has been received. Any local, state, or federal agency that may have
interest in the proposed project shall be notified by the Jefferson County Permit
Center or Planning and Building Department for any comments that agency or
: VOL 23 rAG~ 945
12
department may have. Notice shall include a statement of the public comment
period, which shall be not less than thirty days following the date of notice of
application.
5. After all pertinent data and input has been accumulated, a public hearing before the
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner for any substantial development, secondary or
conditional use applications or variance requests shall be scheduled, or, in the case of
primary use applications, a public hearing may be scheduled. Public notice of a
public hearing shall be made in accordance with Subsection 6.402 of this Master
Program.
6. The Hearing Examiner and City Council with respect to their separate jurisdictions,
shall act on applications as outlined under Subsection 6.30 of this Master Program.
The Hearing Examiner or City Council may refer the application back to the
Jefferson County Permit Center, Planning and Building Department, or City
Administrator for further review.
7. The Jefferson County Permit Center or Planning and Building Department shall
transmit within eight days final action taken on an application to the applicant,
Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Attorney Generals
Office, and any person who has requested notice. The Department of Ecology shall
render its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the
permit within thirty (30) days of the date of submittal by local government.
8. A person who is aggrieved by action taken on an application may appeal the decision
in compliance with Section 9 of this Master Program.
9. A recipient of a shoreline permit from the county or city shall not commence
development or construction until thirty (30) days from the date of filing with the
Washington State Department of Ecology or until all appeal proceedings have
terminated. Due to the Department of Ecology's review of conditional uses and
variances, the date of filing may be up to thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of
the permit by the Department of Ecology.
10. Any development, construction, or activity conducted pursuant to a shoreline permit
issued by Jefferson County or the City of Port Townsend shall be completed within
any time limits for completion that are imposed as a condition of permit approval, or
outline under Subsection 6.405 of this Master Program.
SUBSECTION 6.402 PUBLIC NOTICE
Change to WAC 173-27-110.
SUBSECTION 6.403 BONDS - No change.
SUBSECTION 6.404 REVISIONS
When Jefferson County or the City of Port Townsend receives application to revise a
shoreline permit previously granted, they shall, with respect to their separate jurisdictions,
determine if the desired modifications are "major and significant." If the modifications are
determined as major and significant, a new and complete application shall be processed in
compliance with this section. If the proposed modifications are determined as not being
major and significant, the Board or City Council shall review and thereafter approve or deny
the request for permit revision. When a permittee seeks to revIse a permit, the Jefferson
County Planning and Building Department shall request from the permittee detailed plans and
text describing the proposed changes in the permit.
VOL 23 rA(;~ 946
13
If Jefferson County or the City of Port Townsend determines that the proposed changes are
within the scope and intent of the original permit, they may approve a revision. "Within the
scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following:
1. No additional over-water construction is involved, except that pier, dock, or float
construction may be increased by 500 square feet or 10 percent from the provisions of the
original permit, whichever is less.
2. Ground area coverage and height of each structure may be increased a maximum of ten
percent from the provisions of the original permit.
3. Additional separate structures may not exceed a total of 250 square feet.
4. The revised permit does not exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any of the requirements
of this Master Program except as authorized under the original permit.
5. Additional landscaping is consistent with conditions (if any) attached to the original
permit and with this Master Program.
6. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed.
7. No substantial adverse environmental impact will be caused by the proposed revision. If
the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions violate the provisions above,
the county or city shall require that the permittee apply for a new permit in the manner
provided in this Master Program. Within eight days of the date of final action by the city or
county, the revision, including the revised site plan, text, and the final ruling on consistency
with this section, shall be filed with the Washington State Department of Ecology and
Washington State Attorney General. In addition, the Planning and Building Department shall
notify parties of record of their action. If the revision to the original permit involves a
conditional use or variance that was conditioned by the Department of Ecology, the Planning
and Building Department shall submit the revision to the Department of Ecology for their
approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The revision shall indicate that it is being
submitted under the requirement of WAC 173-27-100(5). The Department of Ecology shall
render and transmit to the Planning and Building Department and the permittee their final
decision within fifteen (15) days of the date of their receipt of the submittal from the county
or city. The Planning and Building Department shall notify parties of record of the
Department of Ecology's final decision. The revised permit is effective immediately upon
final action by the county or city or, in the case of a conditional use or variance, by the
Department of Ecology, in accordance with WAC 173-27-100.
8. Appeals shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of receipt of the local
government's action by the department, or the date the department's final decision is
transmitted to local government and the applicant.
SUBSECTION 6.405 EXPIRATION - No change.
SECTION 7 - VARIANCES
SUBSECTION 7.10 GENERAL VARIANCES - No change
SUBSECTION 7.101 APPLICATION - No change.
SUBSECTION 7.102 PUBLIC HEARING
The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner shall conduct a public hearing on general variance
requests of which notice shall be made in accordance with requirements set forth in this
Master Program.
SUBSECTION 7.103 REVIEW - No change.
SUBSECTION 7.104 CRITERIA - No change.
! VOL 23 rA~~947
14
SUBSECTION 7.105 APPROVAL - No change.
SUBSECTION 7.20 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES
Variances from the administrative procedures portion of this Master Program (Section 6) or
residential setbacks (Subsection 5.160) may be granted by the Jefferson County Hearing
Examiner or Port Townsend City Council upon recommendation of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Administrator or Port Townsend Shoreline Administrator when the board or
council is assured the variance is in keeping with the general intent of this Master Program
and the Shoreline Management Act. In doing so, either body may require special conditions,
which in their judgment will substantially secure the administrative procedures or
requirements so varied.
SECTION 8 - PROGRAM REVISIONS
In order to comply with RCW 90.58.190, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend
shall periodically review this Master Program and make such adjustments that are desirable or
necessary .
The Jefferson County Planning Commission shall develop and/or review any proposed
amendments and adjustments to this Master Program and make recommendations relative
thereto to the Board of County Commissioners.
Any such revisions or adjustments shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of
Ecology only after completion of at least one public hearing in accordance with the
requirements set forth under WAC 173-19, and upon favorable recommendation by the
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and Port Townsend City Council. No such
revision or adjustment shall become effective until it has been approved by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
SECTION 9 - LEGAL PROVISIONS
SUBSECTION 9.10 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
9.101 COURT ACTION - No change.
9.102 GENERAL PENALTY
Change to WAC 173-27.
SUBSECTION 9.103 VIOLATOR'S LIABILITY - No change.
SUBSECTION 9.104 PERMIT CONDITION VIOLATIONS - No change.
SUBSECTION 9.20 APPEALS
SUBSECTION 9.201 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
Any person who considers their self aggrieved by an administrative decision or interpretation
associated with the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program shall within ten (10)
days of the date of final action, appeal in person or in writing to the Jefferson County
Hearing Examiner or Port Townsend Council with respect to their separate jurisdictions for
adjudication of the grievance.
SUBSECTION 9.202 PERMIT APPEALS - No change
SUBSECTION 9.30 SEVERABILITY - No change.
SUBSECTION 9.40 EFFECTIVE DATE - No change.
: VOL 23 948
,. r,~G~
15
III. Jefferson County Code Chapter 2.05 Hearing Examiner, Subsection 2.05.120 Powers
and duties, and Section 2.05.130 as amended by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-
0408-96 Optional Consolidated Permit Review Process are hereby amended as follows:
2.05.120 Powers and Duties
The Examiner shall review all applications for conformance with the Jefferson County
comprehensive plans and/or relevant community development plan, and provisions of all
applicable land use regulations. The Examiner shall receive and examine available
information, conduct open record public hearings, conduct open record appeals, and enter
findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon those facts in a record of a decision to be
rendered 10 working days from the conclusion of the hearing. The conclusions of the
examiner shall represent the final decisions and recommendations as provided hereinafter:
(A) Open Record Public Hearings. The decisions of the Examiner shall be final and
conclusive on the following matters, after an open public hearing unless such determination is
appealed to the Board of County Commissioners under the provisions of the Closed Record
Decisions and Appeals, Chapter 2.15.07.
1. Zoning Applications requiring an open record public hearing under Jefferson
County Zoning Code, Chapter 18.
2. Subdivision Applications requiring an open record public hearing under Jefferson
County Subdivision Code, Chapter 17.
3. Applications for Camper Clubs requiring and open record public hearing under
Jefferson County Code, Chapter 8.35.
4. Applications for substantial development, variances, secondary and conditional use
permits under the Shoreline Master Program, JCC Chapter 18.10.
(B) Open Record Appeals. The decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive on the
following matters, after an open public hearing has been held to consider an appeal of the
following administrative decisions unless such determination is appealed to the Board of
County Commissioners under the provisions of the Closed Record Decisions and Appeals,
Chapter 2.15.07.
1. Appeals of administrative decisions of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, JCC
Chapter 18;
2. Appeals of administrative decisions under Jefferson County Subdivision Code,
JCC, Chapter 17;
3. Decisions of the administrator of the Shoreline Master Program, JCC Chapter
18.10; and
4. Current use assessment of open space or timberland, RCW 84.34.
(C) Jurisdictional Limits. The Examiner shall not review matters requiring policy decisions
or legislative actions by the Board of County Commissioners including but not limited to:
comprehensive plan map redesignations, and text amendments to the Shoreline Management
Master Program. Policy determinations for these and other similar matters are solely within
the purview of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, following recommendation
from the Jefferson County Planning Commission.
IV. Effective Date.
This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the Jefferson County
legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect on ,1997.
However, the procedures and time frames for issuance of permits and/or approvals as set forth
'yol.! 23 r.~f:~949
16
in this ordinance shall apply only to project permit applications filed on or after approval by
the State Department of Ecology.
?t.-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Lday 0~~1997.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
"
. .
. .
.,. I
..
~ '
~ '
~/J1J)-M~
Lorna Delaney
Clerk of the Board
er
'2- lIVT-~
Paul McIlrath
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
: VOL 23 rAG~95D
17
~....
."
f'-, ... .......> -....-. -_....: .-. '.
" . .~' ';'. -'~'.. ',:. '.,'
p.., L
,Jot"f
f ~J
...
rn ~,q_2:mm
. ". i'. ,')
.( )~~. '--
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47775 . Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 · (360) 407-6300
,.!r-'"'ERSON COUNTY
Pi...A~\h.;,G UEPARTMENT
February 6, 1998
MAR 0 4 1998
The Honorable Glen Huntingford
Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Dear Commissioner Huntingford:
This letter concerns the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program (JCSMMP).
Please accept my congratulations on the successful completion of the recent amendment to the
JCSMMP. This amendment revises permit administration policies.
The Department of Ecology hereby approves the subject amendment effective on the above date.
This letter constitutes final action by the Department of Ecology concerning this JCSMMP
amendment. The amended text is incorporated into the State Master Program. This master
program amendment is now effective and may be used to review shoreline projects.
There is enclosed a copy of the findings and conclusions which support the action taken on this
amendment per RCW 90.58.090.
Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Davis at (360) 407-0242.
Sincerely,
Tom Fitzsimmons
Director
TF:r1d
Enclosure
cc: AI Scalf, Director, Community Development, Jefferson County
Harriet Beale, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning, Jefferson County
Interested Parties Mailing List
~.
o
..![--ERSON COUNTY
PL;;;'~; .;r!G DEPARTMENT
MAR 0 4 1998
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
Proposed Regulatory Reform Amendment
February 6, 1998
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Depai"tment of Ecology (Ecology) received the proposed amendment on
December 30, 1997. This Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master
Program (JCSMMP) amendment revises shorelines definitions, permit
administration and exemptions.
The following sections of the JCSMMP are amended to revise permit
administration policies;
. Section 2 - DEFINITIONS
. Section 3 - SCOPE
. Section 6 - ADMINISTRATION
. Section 7 - VARIANCES
. Section 8 - PROGRAM REVISIONS
. Section 9 - LEGAL PROVISIONS
2. Jefferson County (County) conducted a SEP A review and issued a DNS on
November 7, 1997. An addendum was also issued on November 13, 1997 for
subsequent changes to the proposed amendment determined to be categorical
exemptions.
3. The County adopted Ordinance No. 07-1208-97 approving the subject JCSMMP
amendment on December 8, 1997.
4. The Ecology public comment period was January 14 through January 28, 1998. A
request for public comment was published January 14 and 21, 1998 in The Port
Townsend-Jefferson County Leader. Notice was also provided to interested
parties and regulatory agencies by letter. There were no comments or letters
received.
5. The proposed amendment revises the JCSMMP, Section 2, definitions consistent
with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), Chapter 90.58 RCW, and Ecology
guidelines, Chapters 173-26 and 27 WAC. The amendment also revises the
JCSMMP, Section 3, to acknowledge additional shorelines permit exemptions
authorized by the SMA.
'Jefferson County
Page 2
2/6/98
6. The proposed amendment revises JCSMMP, Sections 6 through 9 to change the
shorelines program administration. It includes assignment to the Jefferson County
Hearing Examiner responsibility for shorelines permit review and approval. The
proposed JCSMMP amendment streamlines shoreline permit administration and is
consistent with Ecology guidelines, specifically Chapters 173-26 and 27 WAC.
7. The proposed ICSMMP amendment, pursuant to the above findings and
conclusions, is, therefore, consistent with the SMA and applicable Ecology
guidelines.
./
JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
MEMORANDUM
TO: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM: PERMIT CENTER
SUBJECT: SHORELINE AMENDMENTS
~D-j~ f~.~: ~~, ~ ~ ~Q
. l l I! fl . t ' 1 :'~,~f,;
" ~< L;;\ ll.~l 1..:,:1. ,.1 1;
Q .f"
L, '" F-EB 1 2
"$ 1997
DATE:
c:
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
PERMIT CENTER STAFF
JEFFEHSO~\i COUNTY
fiOM~D OF COMMISS ms
We have good news-after over two years of work, the Shoreline Master Program Amendment
to Section 5.60, Docks, Piers, and Floats was approved by Tom Fitzsimmons, Director of the
Department of Ecology.
In December, 1994, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners directed that a draft
Shoreline Master Program Amendment be prepared in response to requests from various individuals
who had attempted but were not able to obtain permits to build docks. The primary purpose of the
amendment is to provide improved guidance in the design, siting, and sizing of new and expanded
docks, piers, and floats. The amendment applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses and
distinguishes between single and joint use facilities. It provides policies and performance standards
regarding the placement of these structures in the aquatic environment and provides better
regulation of activities that could otherwise have significant environmental impacts.
The draft amendment was developed by the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Advisory
Commission in four workshops held during January through April of 1995. The advisory
Commission held a public hearing on May 24,1995, The Notice of Application and Pending SEPA
Threshold Determination was advertised from June 19 through July 5, 1996. It was determined that
another public hearing was necessary. A SEP A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on
July 24, 1996 as was a Notice of Hearing by the Board of Commissioners. The BOCC adopted the
amendment by resolution on August 26, 1996, The amendment, as adopted, was submitted to the
Department of Ecology for review.
Enclosed are Ecology's [mdings and conclusions and a letter from the Director of Ecology. The
Shoreline Master Program amendment is effective February 5,1997.
Building
Building Permits
(360) 379-4450
Inspection Hotline
(360) 379-4455
1-800-831-2678
Environmental Health
Septic Permits
Water Review
(360) 379-4450
Development Review
Subdivision, Zoning
& Shoreline Permits
(360) 379-4450
Public Works
Road Approach
Permits & Addresses
(360) 379-4450
FAX: (360) 379-4451
.,
There is now a sixty day appeal period. Although the amendment is in effect, we must advertise
the fmal action taken by the Department of Ecology. Any person may ftle a petition for review
within sixty after publication. The petition, if ftled, would then be heard by the Growth
Management Hearings Board with jurisdiction. We do not anticipate an appeal.
2
~"
, .
i roJ ~ @ ~ ~ Wi ~ ~ "
i UO FEB - 7 1997 . ~
I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 . Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 · (206) 407-6300
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PEPMiT CUHcR
February 5, 1997
Mr. AI Scalf, Director
Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Mr. Scalf:
Please accept my congratulations on the successful completion of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program (JCSMMP) amendment. This amendment
revises policies and regulations concerning docks, piers and floats.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY HEREBY APPROVES THE SUBJECT
AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE ON THE ABOVE DATE.
This letter constitutes final action by the Department of Ecology concerning this,
(JCSMMP) amendment. The amended text is incorporated into the State Master
Program. This master program amendment is now effective and may be used to review
shoreline projects
There is enclosed a copy of the findings and conclusions which support the action taken
on this proposed amendment per RCW, 90.58.090.
Should you have any questions, please contact Randy Davis at (360) 407-0242.
I would also like to express our appreciation and thanks to Ms. Monica Macguire of your
.c:~'1
o
Mr. AI Scalf, Director
Page 2
February 5, 1997
planning staff. Ms. Macguire has been extremely knowledgeable and a pleasure to work
with during this shoreline master program planning process.
Sincerely,
TF/RD
Enclosure
c: Monica Macguire, Permit Coordinator, Community Development Department,
Jefferson County
Interested Parties Mailing List
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
Proposed Docks, Piers and Floats Amendment
February 5, 1997
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed amendment was received by the Department of Ecology (Ecology)
on September 9, 1996. The amendment revises policies and regulations
concerning docks, piers and floats of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management
Master Program (JCSMMP). Specifically, JCSMMP, Section 5.60, DOCKS,
PIERS AND FLOATS is substantially revised.
2. Jefferson County (County) conducted a SEP A review and issued a DNS on
August 12, 1996.
3. The County adopted Resolution Number 76-96 on August 26, 1996 approving this
JCSMMP amendment.
4. The Ecology public comment period was September 25 through October 25, 1996.
Ecology conducted a public hearing in Port Townsend on September 17.
5. The County responded by letter, dated January 10, 1997, to an Ecology request
for review and comment on the issues raised during the public comment period
pursuant to RCW 90.58.090.
6. Ecology prepared a responsiveness summary, dated January 17, 1997, which
addressed the concerns raised during the public comment period.
7. The proposed JCSMMP amendment authorizes an increased maximum dock or
pier length of one hundred and ninety-five feet (195) for private non-commercial
structures. The existing JCSMMP maximum length is sixty feet (60). The
increased maximum length is, however, mitigated by regulations that require
facilities extend no further than necessary for their intended purpose, or the
distance necessary to reach 8.5 feet water depth at mean low water tidal elevation,
whichever is less (performance Standard No. 13A.). The amendment also prohibits
docks and piers from extending more than fifteen percent (15%) of the width of
water bodies where navigation would be restricted (prohibited Uses & Activities
No.6).
8. The proposed amendment, Performance Standard No.9, encourages shared use of
the docks and piers consistent with the provisions ofW AC 173-16-060(19).
Jefferson County
Page 2
February 5, 1997
9. The SMA lists water dependent recreation facilities, such as piers and docks, as a
priority use in that they provide opportunities for substantial numbers of people to
enjoy the state's shorelines (RCW 90.58.020).
10. The proposed amendment is consistent with Chapter 173-16 WAC, Ecology
guidelines, in that additional guidance is provided for the design, siting and sizing
of docks, piers and floats.
11. The proposed JCSMMP amendment is, therefore, consistent with the SMA and
Ecology guidelines. It optimally implements the policies of the SMA by
encouraging water dependent recreational facilities and limiting structure length to
the minimum necessary for the anticipated use.
'.
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
August 26, 1996
SECTION 5.60 DOCKS, PIERS AND FLOATS
Definitions
Docks are fixed structures floating upon water bodies, secured to piers or
to the shoreline. piers are fixed, pile-supported structures secured to
the shoreline. Floats are floating structures that are moored, anchored,
or otherwise secured in the water but are not connected to the shoreline.
Boat houses are covered structures used for the storage or moorage of
watercraft. Marinas are regulated under Subsection 5.110 Marinas. Mooring
buoys are regulated under Subsection 5.130, Mooring Buoys. Floating
structures associated with aquaculture projects are evaluated under
Subsection 5.30 Aquaculture.
Prohibited Uses and Activities
1. Docks, piers, floats, and boat houses to be used for r residential
purposes.
2. Docks, piers, and floats on streams and rivers, except for water-
dependent uses.
3. Covered moorage or boat houses over water except within marinas.
4. Fill waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within a marsh, bog
or swamp to accommodate a dock, pier, or float except as provided for
in Section 5.100 Landfills
43- 1
5. Docks, piers, and floats in the Natural designation, except to serve
public access, interpretative, or observation areas.
6. Private, nonconunercial docks and piers which extend waterward more
than 15% of the water body width where boat navigation would be
restricted, measured at high water to the closest opposite shore.
policies
1. The type, design, and location of docks, piers, floats, and boat
houses should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are
located. Consideration should be given to shoreline characteristics,
shoreline resources and processes, wind and wave action, tidal
action, aesthetics, and adjacent land and water uses.
2. In order to reduce the proliferation of structures on the shoreline,
mooring buoys are preferred over docks, piers, and floats. Joint-use
docks, piers, and floats, whether new construction or expansion of
existing facilities, are encouraged over private, single-user docks,
piers, and floats.
3. The siting of docks, piers, and floats should be discouraged at
locations where critical physical limitations exist, such as: gently-
sloping bottoms; high wind, with fetch over one mile; wave or current
exposure; high littoral drift; unstable and/or feeder bluffs; or very
43- 2
narrow bays. Examples of favorable locations include, but are not
limited to Mystery Bay, Mats Mats, Port Ludlow, and Pleasant Harbor.
4. Docks, piers, floats, and boat houses should be designed and
maintained to avoid adverse impacts to the environment and to
shoreline aesthetics, and to minimize interference with the public
use of the water and private use of private property.
5. Docks, piers, boat houses, and floats should be maintained to provide
a reasonable level of safety to users.
43- 3
Performance Standards
1. Boats that are occupied shall not be permitted to moor at private
docks, piers, and floats longer than three (3) days unless pump-out
facilities are available in the immediate vicinity.
2. The design, location, and construction of docks, piers, and floats,
as well as their subsequent use, shall avoid adverse effects on fish,
shellfish, wildlife, marine vegetation, water quality, and
geohydraulic processes. Construction methods shall minimize the use
of materials hazardous to the environment.
3. All lumber and other materials treated with preservative shall be
sufficiently cured to minimize leaching into the water or shore bed,
in accordance with the Best Management Practices approved by the
washington Department of Fish and wildlife.
4. Docks, piers, floats, and boat houses shall be designed and
constructed to minimize hazards to users and to be capable of
withstanding the historic extremes of wind, wave, and tides at their
location.
5. Docks, piers, and floats shall be located, designed, and operated to
minimize interference with the public use of the water and private
43- 4
use of private property.
preferred over piers.
Floats and docks on lakes shall be
6. Railings, if provided, shall be of clear or open framework design and
conform to the Uniform Building Code where required.
7. Utility service on docks and piers shall be placed on or under the
deck. Overhead utility service is prohibited. Lighting shall be
shielded to prevent unnecessary glare off-site and to minimize
hazards to navigation. Overhead lighting for recreational structures
shall be prohibited.
8.
New
waterfront
subdivisions
shall
make
provisions-
for
the
establishment of one or more joint use facilities.
9. An applicant for a new or expanded private recreational dock and/or
pier shall provide for joint use with the owners of irrunediately
adjacent shoreline properties, unless the applicant establishes that
joint use is not feasible. Such joint use shall be defined by a
mutually accepted and legally enforceable j oint use agreement that
shall address, at minimum the following: (1) apportionment of
construction and maintenance expenses, (2) easements and liability
agreements, and (3) use restrictions. Prior to construction, the
applicant shall provide documentation to Jefferson County
demonstrating that the owners of the adjoining shoreline properties
have been notified of this requirement.
43- 5
10. Docks, piers, and floats shall be prohibited on streams and rivers,
except for water-dependent uses. Such a facility shall be the
minimum necessary for the purpose and shall be removed at the
termination of the use.
11. Setbacks for accessory developments shall be as specified under
section 4.105 Urban, Section 5.50 Commercial Development, and Section
5.160 Residential Development.
12. Docks, piers, and floats shall be marked as necessary to avoid
hazardous conditions for water surface users as specified by the U.S.
Coast Guard.
13.A.
Private, non-commercial piers and docks shall extend from shore no
farther than necessary for the intended use. The allowed length of a
structure offshore from the ordinary high water mark shall be no
farther than the distance necessary to reach 8.5 feet of water depth
at mean low water tidal elevation (about 5 feet water depth at
extreme low tide) or 125 feet perpendicular to the shoreline,
whichever distance is less. For joint use facilities, the maximum
length from shore shall be increased 35 feet for one or two
additional moorages provided, and an additional 35 feet for three or
four additional moorages, for a maximum permitted length of 195 feet.
43- 6
13.B "T", "L" or finger docks shall be used when it is possible to provide
the required moorage depth and spaces with less total dock length
from the shoreline.
13.C Where there are existing docks and piers which exceed these length
requirements within 300 feet of both sides of the proposed site, the
length of the proposed structure may be as long as the average length
of those docks and piers. In those instances where an existing dock
or pier which exceeds these length requirements is within 300 feet of
one side of the proposed site, the length may be the average between
the allowed length specified in 13.A, above, and that of the adjacent
structure.
14. Participation in joint use docks and piers shall be limited to lot
owners in a subdivision with water frontage (Performance Standard
Number 8 )or owners of waterfront property in close proximity to one
another (Performance Standard Number 13)
15. Docks and floats shall not extend more than three feet in height above
the water nor exceed eight feet in width. piers shall be constructed
43-::-,7
to the minimum height necessary above historic extreme high tide and
shall not exceed eight feet in width.
16. Total individual float area shall not exceed 160 square feet in size.
17. In areas of seasonal exposure to high wind and waves, docks and moored
vessels shall be moved to a protected location during that time of
year when high wind and waves are anticipated.
18. Docks and piers shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from property
lines except for joint use docks and piers, which may be located
adjacent to or upon a property line when mutually agreed to by
contract or covenant with the owners of the adjoining property, a
copy of which shall be filed with the County Auditor and submitted
with the shoreline permit application.
August 26, 1996
43- 8
a. : 8-V'\ - qfu i. <: .
-/
I': 'I."
I ' "
, '
August 1 2, 1 996
!"-,;-_:.,,,
; ~.,
i!.JJ
P;'>"!(
d,\,l
lLJ tJ~
it
Ii
~ ,I
AUG 1 4 1996
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Phil Andrus
Regarding: amendments to "Docks, Piers, and Floats", section 5.60 of the
SMMP
During the comment period for the SEPA Threshold Determination for
these amendments to the SMMP, you received comments from the
Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wi Idl ife. In response,
County staff prepared revisions to the amendments in a draft which was
presented to you at a publ ic hearing held on August 6. Your staff did an
excellent job of picking the best of the agencies' comments, which appeared
to me to have hastily written. However, I would like to suggest the
following revisions (to the revisions, to the amendments...).
Proh i b i ted Uses and Act iv i ties
DOE recommended that the list of prohibited uses be expressed as a
set of complete sentences. However, to do so would be inconsistent with
the format of the rest of the SMMP. Furthermore, several of the sentences
are awkwardly worded. The language originally drafted by the Shoreline
Commission is preferable and should be used.
Performance Standards
1. (I ine 4) An "occupied vessel" cannot provide proof of anything, but liThe
operator of an occupied vessel..:' can do so. Also, substitute "uti I iZ,e" for
"access and acquirell.
3. (I ine 17) Ilmpacting" is not an adjective. Substitute: "Where feasible, a
method of wood preservation with relatively lower toxicity shall be used in
the construction of docks, piers, and floats. In addition, when wood treated
with a preservative is removed from the aquatic enviroment, it shall be
placed upland such that it cannot reenter the waters of the state."
8. (I ine 19) The term IIcommunity use dock" is not defined in the SMMP. If
this term is to be included in this performance standard, it must be defined
and its definition placed in the list of definitions at the beginning of the
SMMP. However, I feel that the entire new clause ("...as a...proposedJ should
be replaced by: "mif moorage faci I ities are feasible at the proposed
location."
The intent of this performance standard is to insure that the
location(s) of joint use dock(s) be identified and incorporated into the
design of a waterfront subdivision. The language proposed by staff
weakens this requirement, with the I ikely consequence being future
diff iculty in siting joint use docks. If docks are feasible at the site of a
proposed development, we can be certain that property owners wi" want to
bui Id them, whether or not the developer chooses to incorporate docks into
his/her site plan. Thus, we should assist these future property owners by
requiring that dock location(s) appear on each site plan unless the shoreline
of the development is clearly unsuitable for docks.
18. (I ine 12) The addition of Ilabove the Line of Ordinary High Water" to the
original language is unnecessari Iy restrictive and partially defeats the
purpose of this performance standard, which otherwise would be met by the
movement of a vessel to a marina for the duration of the "...time of year
when high wind and waves is anti,cipated." Furthermore, the line of ordinary
high water is not necessarily safe from waves generated by intense low
pressure storms, which can cause tides to be considerably higher than the
I ine of ordinary high water. The original language should be restored.
I hope to attend your meeting on August 26, when you wi II again have
these amendments on your calendar. In the meantime, should you have any
questions, please call me.
~~S~~74~
Phi I Andrus
POB 261
Ch i macum, WA 98325
732 5085
cc. Monica Macguire
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Item
FOR THE WEEK OF: July 15, 1996
I. DESCRIPTION:
The Shoreline Master Program Amendments have been part way through SEP A review. The
amendments have not been properly prepared. We have provided a more thorough description of the
problems with the amendments in the attached memorandum.
II. ISSUES:
See attached memorandum for detail. In summary, the definitions are either so unclear or cause
such dramatic impacts that they warrant further review. The Shoreline Management Commission also
made a major substantive change in the amendments after the public hearing. This needs to come before
the public again.
III. ACTION:
You have two options:
1) Remand the amendments back to the Shoreline Commission for further review and revision (thus
causing delay) or
2) Direct staff to make the necessary changes in the amendments and then hold your own public hearing
with findings and conclusions that will lead to approval.
We recommend that you choose option #2, so that we can finish the amendment process quickly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
JEFFERSON COUNTY PERMIT CENTER
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
MEMORANDUM
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Monica Macguire
July 11, 1996
State Environmental Policy Act review of proposed amendments to the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program Section 5.60 Docks, Piers and Floats, and
request for preliminary threshold determination.
ProDosal:
The primary purpose is to amend the Shoreline Management Master Program Section 5.60 Docks, Piers
and Floats, in particular to amend Performance Standard 13b as directed by the Board of County
Commissioners to make it less restrictive.
Proiect Location:
The Shoreline Master Program affects all aquatic areas and upland properties within the shoreline
jurisdiction. The shoreline jurisdiction includes all marine waters and intertidal areas, lakes over 20 acres,
streams with more than 20 cubic feet per minute mean annual flow, the upland area within 200 feet of
the ordinary high water mark of those water bodies, and their associated wetlands.
Historv:
The proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program were prepared by the Shoreline
Commission. Written and oral testimony was received through the public hearing process in May, 1995.
Several workshops followed the public hearing. An environmental checklist was prepared and the Notice
of Application and Pending Threshold Determination for Case No. ENV96-0002 (the amendments) was
advertised from June 19 through July 5, 1996. The comment period ended on July 5, 1996.
Evaluation:
Significant revisions are requested by both Washington State Departments of Ecology and Fish
and Wildlife, suggesting that the potential adverse environmental impacts of these amendments
are significant unless revisions are made to the amendments. The proposal would need a
Determination of Significance and considerable further environmental evaluation before approval would
be granted by the state. Comments were also received from Jefferson County Fire Protection District
#3.
Building
Building Permits
(360) 379-4450
Inspection Hotline
(360) 379-4455
1-800-831-2678
Environmental Health
Septic Permits
Water Review
(360) 379-4450
Development Review
Subdivision, Zoning
& Shoreline Permits
(360) 379-4463
Public Works
Road Approach
Permits & Addresses
(360) 379-4450
FAX: (360) 379-4451
Based on the Washington State Department of Ecology comments of July 5, 1996, it appears that minor
rewording would add clarity and conformance to the Shoreline Management Act and the Washington
Administrative Code. However, many of the revisions made after the public hearing on May 24, 1995,
constitute substantial changes and require an additional public hearing.
In compiling SEPA comments, Staff identified several items that appear to require additional
consideration by the Board. The definition of "fetch" and its use in Policy 3 as a limiting factor for dock
placement is problematic. The modification to the definition of boathouses to include float equipped
aircraft caused concerns. The changes to maximum total length after the public hearing constitute a
substantial change in the proposal. Clarification between joint use and marina definitions was requested
by WDFW. The need for more specific language in several performance standards was identified by
each respondent and are discussed below.
The Department of Ecology comments reflect concern that the amendments as currently written do not
clearly address the siting limitations on dock and pier proposals and do not provide a useful criteria for
their review. Staff recommends Board consideration of removal of the definition of fetch. Quantitative
limitations to dock length in narrow embayments, as suggested by Ecology, is stated in Prohibited Uses
and Activities 6.
However, Ecology would like the Board to consider language revisions that state more clearly the intent
"to prohibit, or allow with limitations, docks, piers, and floats as necessary to protect navigation, public
use, or habitat values." Limitations due to unsuitable natural conditions in Policy 3 should be reflected in
performance standards that review proposals in relation to compatibility with the surrounding
environmental designation and with existing land and water uses.
The definition of "boathouses" has been modified to include float plane structures and was identified by
Ecology as a major concern. The definition in the shoreline management guidelines defines boathouses
for storage of vessels. Vessels are defined in a way that excludes aircraft. Structures that house float
planes are generally large in size, potentially impacting water views and causing shading. These
structures should receive special consideration in the Master Program such as a specific definition and
conditional use review with performance standards that address size and sitting specifications. Such
specifications are not presently in the Master Program regarding "boathouses."
Staff recommends that the Board approve additional revisions to address language changes
recommended in written comments from the Washington Department of Fisheries. These suggestions
relate to proof of access and use of pumpout facilities in Performance Standard 1; assessment of
impacts to littoral drift for proposed structures attached to the beach in Performance Standard 2; use
specifications for treated lumber and pilings in Performance Standard 3; and removal of moored vessels
to protected locations above the Line of Ordinary High Water in Performance Standard 17.
The Staff also recommends the addition of a provision for proposed docks, and piers longer than the
existing limitation of 60 feet that would require a dock phone or alarm system in case of emergency
situations. The increased potential for fuel spill, fire, or explosion from moored vessels may pose
potentially significant adverse impacts and is a concern expressed in the comments from Fire Protection
District #3.
Staff suggests the Board read the Staff recommendations for revisions prior to issuing a final threshold
determination. The Board should then hold a public hearing. Time is allowed for comment, review and
possible additional revisions after the comment period expires. Ecology has expressed interest in
making additional comments on the final threshold determination. At that time the SEPA process would
be complete. The Department of Ecology then could grant approval to the amendments for adoption in
the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program. At that time amendment implementation
begins.
~~~ ~:"if9
Memorandum of Understanding
between the
Coastal Counties of Washington
(Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson & Pacific)
Regarding Appropriation of House Bill 2242 Funds
An agreement between the four coastal counties of Washington State (Clallam, Grays
Harbor, Jefferson and Pacific) as to funds appropriated to coastal counties by House Bill
2242 enacted in the 1989 seSSIOn of the Washington State Legislature.
Whereas, the Ocean Resources Management Act (House Bill 2242) requires local
governments to review their respective shoreline master program amendments to ensure
conformity with state guidelines now being developed;
Whereas, the four coastal counties have worked together in developing a coastal policy ;
Whereas, the four coastal counties agree to individually prepare shoreline master program
amendments necessary to comply with House Bill 2242; .
Whereas, the four coastal counties agree that consistency of amendments between the four
counties would be beneficial;
Whereas, the four coastal counties will continue the coordination element begun in 1989
and propose to coordinate preparation of the counties shoreline master program
amendments;
Whereas, the counties of Grays Harbor and Pacific each have cities within their
jurisdictions which might require shoreline master program amendments;
Whereas, the counties of Grays Harbor and Pacific will reach separate agreements with the
cities within their jurisdiction regarding preparation of shoreline master program
amendments; and
Whereas, the Department of Ecology has requested an agreement from the four coastal
counties as to disbursement of funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the four coastal counties agree to the
following distribution formula of House Bill 2242 funds:
Graxs Harbor County
PaCIfic County
Cla11am County
Jefferson County
Coastal Coordination
39%
24%
13.5%
13.5%
10%
.!$39,000
$24,000
$13,500
$13,500
$10,000
Agree~ to this 5th day of June, 1990 by the Coastal Coordination Project Steering
Conumttee. . ~
~~ Gra~~~9